My choice: Grant Robertson

A couple of weeks ago I wrote that Labour’s choice to have the leadership contest before a full and comprehensive review of our campaign, organisation, and direction, put the onus on the leadership contenders to provide an honest analysis of our current crisis and a road-map for Labour to recover. Clearly describing the problem and showing how to build a ‘big tent’, outwards facing Labour, are effectively my tests for who is best placed to lead. Based on these tests, Grant Robertson is my choice.

I don’t come to this position as a tribal Robertson supporter. In 2012 I voted for David Cunliffe, and I have worked with, and developed a great respect for, David Parker on the Policy Council over recent years. The other contenders are fine people who have important roles to play in the party. My support for Grant is based purely on a belief that he understands the scale of our challenge, and has the skills, experience, and relatability to successfully lead Labour as we rebuild.

Labour has become small and inwards facing. That’s quite common in organisations that have suffered a succession of defeats or set-backs. Losing is hard, and I’ve seen many companies, NGOs, churches, and unions direct their energy inwards and become hostile and prickly to honest criticism under similar circumstances. After awhile it becomes a death spiral – the organisation shrinks, it seeks new targets to blame, it becomes less appealing, and so on. There has to be a conscious decision to invert the energy and face outwards if the organisation is to survive and prosper again. This all has to start with a recognition of the problem, and I have most clearly seen this from Grant. In the days after the defeat when the easiest thing was to downplay the result, to blame the media or Dotcom, or to make a bland debate-sapping appeal to unity, it was Grant who consistently held that awful result up in front of us and said “we scored 25% — we have a serious problem, and we need to change”.

Flowing on from that recognition, Grant has set out a framework for change — and something at the level of a framework is what is required now. In the middle of a truncated leadership process, and pending information from the review, I think that it is important that we don’t become reactive and focus on very specific and easy to scratch itches. The only real criticism I would make of any of the other contenders has been the ease with which some of them have reached for major policies as sacrificial lambs. We need to look at the fundamentals first – what should we be focussed on, where we have fallen out of alignment with possible supporters, and how we better engage with the community. The end result of examining these things may well be that policy is substantially altered, but focussing on individual policies at this point is a mis-diagnosis of Labour’s malady, and a substantial distraction from the bigger issues we face.

Grant’s framework gets it right in this regard. Rather than leaping to conclusions and re-enforcing the idea that we just listen to ourselves, he has committed to an outwards facing programme of engagement with New Zealanders. Specifically, and as a part of a set of commitments to both the party and the country, he is proposing a Labour in the Community programme that will methodically re-orient the party back towards the community with a focus on ongoing engagement at the grassroots level, and an open dialogue about key issues and policy direction. This is not a magic bullet, but doing it well will be an important first step in not just talking about ‘connecting’ but actually doing it.

This theme of facing up to our problems and re-constructing an outwards facing organisation is threaded through the rest of the commitments that Grant has given to the party:

· Implement the findings of the 2014 post- election review.

· Employ regional party organisers to build our capacity on the ground.

· Create our 2017 campaign team now, and include reps directly elected from the party membership.

· Renew and strengthen our caucus and core party personnel, including through candidate and leadership development programmes.

· Build confident and mature relationships with other parties that we can form a government with in 2017.

One comment about the final point above. This is a litmus test for me. A Labour party that is internally confident and knows what it stands for, will be able to build relationships with potential partners in government far more readily than we have demonstrated in recent times. Our prickly and defensive relationship with the Greens was, in my view, one of the clearest outwards signs to the public that we were not ready for government in 2014. Grant’s willingness to front-foot the issue at this stage is an indication that he is thinking strategically about how Labour positions itself as the party that can anchor future long-term progressive government in New Zealand.

Grant’s presentation of a series of commitments also demonstrates that he has thought not just about winning the job, but about the task ahead. The laying out of a roadmap with some key principles and matching specifics gives us a sense of what his leadership would be like. I worked with Grant on the Policy Council when as deputy leader he was the Chair of the Council, and I was one of the co-secretaries representing the interests of party members. I found him to be strategic and collegial, but to my mind the greatest strength he brought to that role was a fairly unique blend of deep-rooted social democratic principles, and practical political skills. He is someone who has a clear vision for what we could be, but also a belief that you only get there through strategic thinking and a good plan. He is what Mike Smith, when talking about Clark and Cullen, has called a “hard headed social democrat”.

Importantly, that period on Policy Council with Grant was during the most recent round of party democratisation. In the policy area this involved wide-ranging changes, most specifically the establishment of a binding and member controlled ‘Policy Platform’ that sets out the party’s key directions. This represented a significant shift in power to the party membership in the policy process. The whole way through Grant was a key supporter of this aspect of the democratisation, and he then applied himself to making it work. I have seen first-hand that he is a person who believes in a more modern and open party that engages members and the wider community.

One final thing on the Platform. When explaining the purpose of the document to members we had a list of carefully constructed bullet points that set out its constitutional purpose and how it would better engage members in policy and direction. At one meeting Grant ad-libbed another point: “I remember the 80s and this will stop those bastards from ever doing what they did to our party again”. Grant is measured and strategic, but his values and principles are deeply rooted and felt.

While no politician worth their salt will be liked be everyone, Grant also has a strong track record of building strong and enduring relationships with the people around him. The vast majority of people I know who have worked with him at different levels, from local organising or portfolio work, through to caucus and media, have a healthy respect for Grant and his abilities. They recognise his political skill-set but also generally comment that he is just a likeable person. It is clear that Labour’s ‘relatability’ is a problem. People see us as just a bit odd and ‘not like them’. We have to resolve that if we are to win government again, and while a large part of that will be about re-orienting the organisation to face the community, another factor will be how well the Leader connects with people. Grant does this well, and I think a big part of this is that (like most successful leaders – think Clark or Key) he is internally confident about what he stands for. He doesn’t verbally grope around to say the right thing to a certain audience, but can instead speak to his own values and vision in a coherent, pleasant and engaging way. People tend to walk away feeling that they have spoken with someone who is authentic, understands the real world, and importantly they feel that they have been heard.

I’m also convinced that with Grant we get the strongest team. Alone of the contenders he has spelled out who will be in the front row, announcing at the weekend that Jacinda Ardern is his preferred deputy and effective running mate, and that his favoured Finance spokesperson is the incumbent, David Parker. This is a combination that combines some serious political skills with political appeal, and genuine policy heft. They are all trustworthy people with strong support across key sectors in the community, and how about this – Wellington/Auckland/Dunedin. I’ve been convinced for awhile that we too easily ascribe National’s success to the preternatural popularity of John Key alone, whereas there is actually a very strong senior team around him that projects competence and unity of purpose. A Robertson/Ardern/Parker combination (with the other contenders in key roles on the front bench) would be formidable in this regard.

The leadership will be decided in less than a month. Following that the real work for Labour begins. We need a Leader who recognises that rebuilding Labour requires more than just strong presentational skills, caucus unity, or base appeal. We need someone who understands that as a movement, we rise or fall on our ability to inspire community confidence and build a broad coalition for progressive change. We need someone who has grounded principles, excellent political skills and judgment, a capacity to relate to people, and a willingness to take Labour out of the shaded comfort zones we have dwelt in recently. All of the contenders are of a high quality and should play a big role in Labour’s future, but Grant Robertson’s ability to understand, plan, and bring people along as we implement change, make him my choice.